Really? Does that actually happen? Teachers just decide to shoot up all the students that they work with every day? If you can cite some examples, then go right ahead. Otherwise, I think it's a pretty far-fetched scenario.

Besides, IF a teacher was truly intent on shooting up all of her/his own students, then I don't think the current laws would provide much of a deterrent at all.

As for the students being able to gain control of the guns, that could be prevented with the most basic of precautions.

Again, it's the knowledge that the shooter is going to be encountering armed resistance immediately after brandishing the firearm that I believe would provide the greatest deterrent to these kinds of shootings.

Of course, no law is going to stop all forms of violence, because human beings are evil and corrupted by our very natures. However, laws should never stand in the way of law-abiding citizens defending themselves from evil actions.

Nate, read what you said to Brad, "The problem is with people not inanimate objects." And that is the problem, "people...humans". And that's my point! A loaded gun in a locked cabinet is just that, it's not going anywhere by itself to shoot anybody. People are the unknown and unpredictable, you never know what might be going on with them, in their head, in their life, to set them off. They said Newtown, CT, was listed as one of the safest places to raise your family. Now they'll be forever known as the town where Adam Lanza killed 27 people, 20 of them children.

You and Mike talk about a shooter thinking twice if he knows he'll be encountering armed resistence...who, a shooter like this young man? Do you seriously think he was thinking with a sane rational mind; he shot his mother and then went to the school to shoot children. They said tonight that he shot each child multiple times, one child was shot 11 times. These kids were 6 and 7 years old. This is the mind that's going to be deterred? And what about the Fort Hood shooter, he definitely knew there were people there that had weapons, but that wasn't a deterrent, it wasn't going to stop him from shooting as many people as he could.

So, yeah, one day, it could be a teacher; we already know students will kill. Any human is capable of evil...right? Nothing is far-fetched where humans are concerned.

Adam Lansza was a sick freak. Adam Lansza wanted to kill those kids. If Adam Lansza did not have a gun, do you think he would have found some way to do what he did? Or, as the media seems to think, would he have said to himself,"I want to murder 20 kids and make my name go down in history with dylan kleebold, timothy mcveigh, jeffery dahmer, charles manson, etc..., but, oh, wait just a dog gone second, guns are banned!!!! I can't get a gun!!! I no longer want to murder twenty kids and 6 adults!!!! I could never find a way to kill someone without a gun!!! I am going to be a respectable, valuable citizen now!"

And what about the Fort Hood shooter, he definitely knew there were people there that had weapons, but that wasn't a deterrent, it wasn't going to stop him from shooting as many people as he could.

That was something different, it was a planned terrorist attack. However I knew someone would bring that up, which is why I qualified my statement about shooters not attacking police stations or military bases with the word "usually."

Anyways, the Ft. Hood shooter was a soldier himself. As a soldier he would have known exactly when and where to attack other soldiers so that their ability to defend themselves would be minimal.

I haven't read any reports about where the guns came from. But it seems that you are simply making assumptions that they were just laying for anyone to grab, in order to justify your biases here.

Either way, you can't base laws off of individuals who are clearly deranged.

i dont have any biases here Nate but you do....I personally really dont care what your gun laws are,but if you really want to know what the problem is you need to take off the blinders and look around.

if this person didn't have access to semi automatic weapons at home then this would not have happend....after all he did try to buy his own gun a few days before but was denied and went away empty handed,but his mother had an assault rifle at home that he had access to and he just used that instead.

i dont have any biases here Nate but you do....I personally really dont care what your gun laws are,but if you really want to know what the problem is you need to take off the blinders and look around.

if this person didn't have access to semi automatic weapons at home then this would not have happend....after all he did try to buy his own gun a few days before but was denied and went away empty handed,but his mother had an assault rifle at home that he had access to and he just used that instead.

Again, where are you getting your information from? It seems to me that you are simply jumping to conclusions in order to support your personal opinion. Then you try to deflect attention away from your own biases by claiming that we are the ones who are biased.

so you are comparing this to 911 ? and the bombing of the federal building ?...seriously ?...wow...and you think its a good thing this guy killed 20 children with an assault rifle ?

Your the one who implied that people getting stabbed was preferable to people getting shot, so maybe he was just following your line of reasoning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradW

tell me something..why do you feel a need to have access to an assault rifle ?
is that the best thing for hunting ? or you just like the idea of being able to kill a lot of people in a hurry...

It has nothing to do with hunting. It's about the US population being able to protect itself from the US government.

As Thomas Jefferson stated:

Quote:

When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.